Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In last week’s editorial, I discussed half of the problem of the church and the individual. I attempted to demonstrate from the scriptures that the position that whatever the individual may do, the church may do is false. The other position which some seem to be taking is that whatever the church may not do, the individual may not do. We are seeing expressions of this with reference to colleges which operate Bible departments and foundations such as Cogdill Foundation. Some brethren are opposed to both of these on the basis that they believe that God has given the church the exclusive responsibility of teaching the gospel.

Some of these brethren have opposed church support of colleges on this basis through the years, although the majority of brethren have opposed church support of colleges on a different basis. However, some have reached the conclusion that since the church cannot send a contribution to a college, neither can an individual. Hence, what the church cannot do is what the individual cannot do.

Using the same points of comparison mentioned last week, I want to show that the individual can be engaged in many activities which the church is forbidden to be engaged in. This will demonstrate the error of the thesis “what the church cannot do, the individual cannot do.”

The Individual Can Do Many Things Which The Church Cannot Do

There are many areas of liberty in which an individual may choose to become involved that a church has no God-given authority to become involved. This can be seen in a number of different manners; let us consider a few of them.

1. The community obligations. I have a number of obligations toward my fellow man because I am a member of a community. In addition to my responsibility to conduct myself in a way that glorifies God, I have a responsibility to help as many needy people as I have the opportunity to help (Gal. 6:10; Lk. 10:25-37). These are obligations given to me as an individual, not to the church as a collectivity.

As an individual discharging my God-given obligations. I have every right to work with other individuals in discharging these obligations. I can pool my resources with other individuals to build hospitals, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, unwed mothers’ homes, and any number of other service institutions. T’he scriptures have not legislated regarding the kinds of organizations which can be used in discharging these personal obligations; therefore, I can work with others as I see fit in fulfilling my obligations before God in this realm.

Throughout the controversies over church support of human institutions, brethren have correctly argued that they were not opposed to the existence of colleges or orphan homes; they were opposed to the church support of these institutions. I think they argued correctly.

2. The home. I have a number of God-given obligations with reference to my family. So far as I am able to determine, I have every scriptural right to pool my resources with other families in order to discharge these family obligations. In discharging my obligations to educate my family, I have the liberty to pool my resources with others to provide whatever educational opportunities I choose for my family. In discharging my obligations to provide clean recreation for my children, I have every right to pool my resources with other families to rent the facilities of a camp area and run it in accordance with the moral principles revealed in God’s word, if I so desire.

Although the church cannot become involved in these activities without violating the word of God, individuals have the right to pool their resources in order to discharge their personal, individual responsibilities. The Lord has not legislated how to provide these things for my family.

3. The government. I also have certain responsibilities toward my country, as a citizen in this country. 1 have the liberty of working with other citizens in discharging these responsibilities. Hence, if I want to become a member of some political party which might direct this country in the direction which I think it ought to go, I have the scriptural right to become a member of that party or organization. I can join other concerned citizens to voice my opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, the showing of nudity and profanity on television, abortion on demand, or whatever other political ideas I want to support. Although the church cannot be involved in any of these activities, the individual has a right to function individually and in conjunction with other individuals in discharging his God-given individual responsibilities.

4. Business. God has given to me certain responsibilities in business; I must be engaged in gainful employment to provide for my family. If I choose to pool resources with several other people who need to be engaged in gainful employment to support their families to form some kind of business partnership, I have every right to do so. Although the church cannot be involved in business enterprises, the individual can be involved in such activities. Hence, I can pool resources with other individuals in discharging this personal, individual responsibility.

These areas demonstrate that an individual has the right to do a number of things which the church cannot do. Hence, the thesis, “whatever the church cannot do, the individual cannot do,” is false. No one, to my knowledge, would question anything that I have said to this point. However, the water becomes muddy for some people when we turn to individual responsibilities in reference to the dissemination of God’s word, the teaching of moral obligations, and other matters related to the Scriptures.

My Individual Responsibilities in Religion

Sometimes brethren want to treat my individual responsibilities in religion as if they were unique. Frankly, I can see no difference in discharging my individual responsibility to support my family, to care for the needy non-Christians, to work as a good citizen in the government, to work as an individual member of my family, and in discharging my individual responsibilities to teach God’s word and to meet the benevolent responsibilities which I have toward Christians.

As an individual, I have a moral obligation to disseminate God’s word (Acts 8:4; 2 Tim. 2:2). The obligation which I have in this area is not discharged when the church sends money to support a gospel preacher to some needy area. I have personal, individual responsibilities in teaching God’s word which the church cannot do for me. So far as I am able to determine, I have the right to work with other individuals in discharging these personal, individual responsibilities, even as Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke labored together in discharging their individual responsibilities. Consequently, I see nothing wrong with individuals pooling their resources to publish some kind of paper to spread the word of God as Leslie Diestelkamp, his family, and other interested saints do in publishing Think. Whether they decide to give the paper away or to sell it is their own choice. I see no greater virtue in selling such a paper than in giving it, the comments of some preachers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, I see nothing sinful in several individuals pooling their resources to publish good literature designed to teach God’s word. Publishing organizations which print and distribute the Bible and books about the Bible can be created and supported by individuals in discharging their personal responsibilities.

I have every right to join with others in working in moral instruction. If I choose to join a temperance society, the Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other organization designed to teach moral principles, I have violated nothing in God’s word, so far as I am able to determine. I have the right to join with others in the discharge of my personal, individual obligations.

So far as I am able to determine, several of us have every right to pool our resources to conduct a gospel meeting in any area we choose. If several of us pooled our resources to rent a tent, property, seats, and a microphone to conduct a meeting in some area in which no church existed, I do not understand that we would have violated any scripture in so doing. We would not be robbing the church of its glory, doing the work of the church, or anything else which might conflict with our obligations to the local church. We would simply be discharging our individual responsibilities in conjunction with others who were discharging their individual responsibilities. We would not be doing the work of the church in such an arrangement any more than when we pooled our resources to discharge our responsibilities to our families, our governments, our communities, and our businesses.

If several of us decided to pool our resources to assist some aged, needy saint, we would have every right to do so. The fact that we pooled our resources to help this saint would not constitute a violation of any Scripture in spite of the fact that the church might also have a responsibility to this same individual. Whatever several of us did together in discharging our personal responsibilities would have nothing to do with the church’s responsibility toward that individual.

Conclusion

Some brethren among us are taking such a radical position on collectivities that they are making it necessary that all collective action in spiritual matters be discharged through the local congregation. Several Christians cannot pool their resources to assist widow indeed without forming a “sinful” collectivity, according to this position. Such results in a position that says “whatever the church cannot do the individual cannot do,” a premise which I have sought to demonstrate to be false in the article.

If someone knows where God has legislated regarding how I am to discharge my individual responsibilities with reference to caring for needy people and teaching the word of God, I would like for him to show me that legislation. I know of no passage which says that the work of teaching the word of God has been given exclusively to the church. It simply is a false conclusion which some have reached which says that whatever the church cannot do (such as contribute to a college in which the Bible is taught), the individual cannot do.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that a person must contribute to a college with a Bible department in order to be a faithful servant of God. I am not saying that an individual must pool his resources with other individuals to discharge any of his responsibilities, whether we are discussing his responsibilities in business, the home, the government, or the community. He does, however, have this liberty. Inasmuch as it is a liberty, it cannot be forced on others. It must be treated on the basis of Romans 14. With the hope that this sheds more light than heat on the subject of the individual and the church, this material is submitted for your consideration.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 179-181
March 19, 1981

By Dudley Ross Spears

In the May issue of Basil Overton’s paper, The World Evangelist, the good editor takes up the issue of general benevolence among those who are not Christians and after asking the questions, seems not to be able to find the right answer. Basil Overton is totally anti in his editorial. He is anti-saints-only benevolence from the church treasury. It would be extremely interesting to see Overton get positive and show from the Bible where the church has divine right to engage in general benevolence among those who are not Christians. It would be interesting to hear what he would have to say about churches supporting purely secular benevolent institutions or orphanages operated by the Masonic Lodge or some denomination.

If the church is not limited in benevolent work from the treasury then it must be either semi-limited or unlimited. Which is it, brother Overton? If the church, from the common funds, is unlimited in benevolent work, what objection could be registered against donating to the Red Cross, the Heart Fund, the United Way, or any number of other such organizations? If it is just the doctrinal aspect or denominational affiliation involved in some benevolent institutions, could the church help an indigent Catholic “Priest” or “Nun?” Would brother Overton object to such a practice?

Overton says that if some affirm that 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 means that church funds were to be restricted to “saints only,” then it would be inconsistent for preachers to be supported out of the treasury. The good editor has apparently never learned that 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 is instruction covering the collection of funds and is not an exhaustive treatment of the disbursement of the same funds. The passage says that the collection was to be taken “upon the first day of the week.” It was for the “saints” who were in need. To have used the funds for other than saints would be misappropriating the funds. But there are numerous other passages which teach how the New Testament churches spent their money which includes supporting the preachers of the gospel (Phil. 4:14-16; 2 Cor. 11:7-8).

More of the same type of faulty reasoning is seen in the editor’s confused thinking when he says that money from non-saints could not be taken into the contribution. He issues the challenge to any church that teaches that only saints who are in need are legitimate objects of congregational benevolence to tell him that no money from non-saints is taken into the treasury. Our answer is simply that there is authority only for the relief of needy saints from the treasury and only saints are commanded to contribute and there is absolutely nothing said about non-saints either contributing or not contributing. That is not the problem at all. We do not solicit non-members for money but we surely do our members. We cannot say it is a sin for a nonmember not to contribute into the common fund, but surely must say it is sinful for a member not to contribute. See the difference, brother Overton?

Brother Overton has been wrong about the difference in individual Christian action in benevolence and collective action in benevolence ever since I have known him and that goes back .over twenty years. He wonders why 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 means “saints only” when a local church does benevolence and why 1 Corinthians 16:5 does not mean “saints only” when individual Christians do benevolence. There are other passages which teach individual Christians to help saints and non-saints (Gal. 6:10). Other passages teach individual Christians to provide for their own relatives and not burden the church (1 Tim. 5:16). Thus it is right for individuals to help those outside the fellowship of the church “as we have opportunity,” but if brother Overton knows of a passage that teaches the local churches of Christ to do a general work of benevolence among non-members why doesn’t he produce it and stop being so negative about the whole matter of benevolence? No, it is not a sin to help those who are not Christians in relieving their needs – it is a sin to take funds from the treasury and relieve them. Brother Overton and those who stand with him seem more bound up with the treasury of the local church than anyone I can think of. They leave the impression that the only benevolence that is done must be financed collectively through the common treasury of the church. He needs to think more about this matter.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, p. 178
March 19, 1981

By Dan Walters

Are you spiritual? This question is necessary because the New Testament teaches that not all members of the Lord’s church, not all baptized believers, are spiritual. Contrary to certain denominational doctrines, a person does not immediately change from being carnally minded to being spiritually minded at the point of conversion. He does not receive some miraculous infusion of the Holy Spirit which transforms him into a spiritual person. Paul told some of the members of the church in Corinth that they were “yet carnal” and that he could not speak unto them as “unto spiritual.” He used the instances of “envying and strife, and divisions” as proof that these brethren were not spiritually minded (1 Cor. 3:1-3). In speaking to the Galatians Paul directs “ye which are spiritual” to restore any brother overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6:1). This implies that certain brethren were spiritual and others were not.

It is also true that certain “things” are spiritual, while others are not. Paul told the Corinthians, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” He had preached the gospel to them and he asserted his right to financial support. The gospel is here regarded as a “spiritual” thing, and financial support as a “carnal,” or material, thing (1 Cor. 9:11). In Ephesians 5:19, Paul speaks of “spiritual songs” to be used in worship, thus implying that not all songs are spiritual. A song might be of a secular nature, and so it would not be spiritual, but carnal. Nevertheless, the song might be harmless and appropriate for a Christian to sing at certain times. For instance, the song “Happy Birthday” is a carnal song. All songs used in worship should be spiritual in nature.

Basically, the spiritual is that which by nature or association is invisible and immaterial, while the carnal is composed of, or associated with, matter. Since all matter is doomed to perish, and spirit is not, we might say that the difference between the carnal and the spiritual is the difference between the temporal and the eternal. There is certainly such a thing as spiritual evil; Ephesians 6:12 mentions “spiritual wickedness in high places.” But most references to the “spiritual” in the New Testament involve that which is good – that which is associated with God. So we shall confine ourselves to a discussion of what it means to be spiritual in the positive sense.

Abraham was a spiritual giant because he could see beyond the physical realm, the environment that can be detected with the five senses, and could appreciate the invisible, eternal things of God. He desired a heavenly city, “a city which bath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). With the eye of faith, he could see future events promised by God as if they had already been accomplished. Most importantly, he had a correct sense of priorities: he placed a much greater value upon heavenly things than upon earthly things.

Although a Christian should be spiritually minded at all times, we are specifically taught that our worship to God must be “in spirit” (John 4:24). When we sing, pray, or take the Lord’s Supper, our bodies must be necessarily involved. But the emphasis should not be upon form, or ritual. While being careful not to overstep the bounds of God’s authority, we should be primarily concerned with our mental attitude during worship. It is the spiritual meaning of the song, of the prayer, and of the Supper that should occupy our attention.

Men often confuse form with substance. While a student at Harding College, one of my professors attempted to impress upon our minds the spiritual superiority of worship at Harding and at the College Church, as compared to the small-town and rural churches that many of us had previously attended. This gentleman was rather “cultured” and he preferred great formality in worship, including the almost exclusive use of the “great hymns” (i.e., those which did not include a chorus, were slow and stately, did not have a bass lead, etc.). He did not consider the fact that most of these songs were written by nonChristians and were intended to be sung to the accompaniment of a pipe organ. They were to him “more spiritual.” The few times that I attended the College Church in Searcy, I found no evidence of abundant spirituality. One sermon I shall never forget had for its text something that Pat Boone had written! The student body at Harding included the good and the bad, but I do not recall that the lives of my fellow students and of my teachers reflected a spiritual level any higher than that of the average congregation in Possum Trot or Hoot Owl Junction. The singing at Harding was more acceptable to the musicians; the preaching was more acceptable to the grammarians. But was the worship more acceptable to God? I am content to let God be the judge.

What can we do to help make our worship more spiritual? For one thing, we can take the emphasis off of fine church buildings, preachers with great secular learning, and highly trained singers. We can talk more about the Christian’s personal relationship with Christ and how that true worship must proceed from the heart. We must make it clear that when we read and study the Bible this is Christ’s way of revealing His will to us, and that a Christian must have a desire to grow in knowledge, in faith, and in love in order to reach spiritual maturity. It must be understood that this process cannot be limited to the assembly, but must be a continual effort of each individual Christian every day of his life.

Each Christian in a given congregation is at a different point in his spiritual growth. This growth will continue as long as life itself. When a Christian stops growing, perhaps believing that he is totally spiritual already, then he begins to die. There are things that contribute to spiritual growth, and there are other things that are the enemies of spirituality. Carnal worship of the kind practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant churches is such an enemy. It is a reversion to the carnal ritualism of the Mosaic Law. People who favor this type of worship feel that they must have their statues, pictures, elaborate architectural forms, pomp and ceremony, and instruments of music in order to make them feel close to God. Under Moses’ Law, such material aids served a symbolic purpose; but shadow has now given way to substance. We now experience the spiritual reality of Christ. To go back to the “weak and beggarly elements” is like a healthy young man depending upon a crutch to help him walk. It is not only unnecessary; it will cause him to grow weak so that he cannot function without the crutch.

The greatest hindrance to spiritual grow among members of the Lord’s church is materialism, or “covetousness,” as the New Testament expresses it. This hindered the worship of God’s people even in Old Testament times. God spoke these words to Ezekiel concerning the condition of the Israelites: “And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness” (Ezek. 33:31). This is the sin that keeps Christians from putting God and His kingdom first in their lives. One Christian puts a greater value upon making money than upon worshipping God; so, he works on Sunday instead of meeting with his brethren around the Lord’s table at the appointed time. He may try to salve his conscience by coming to the evening service and taking the Supper at that time. Some say he has no right to do this; others stoutly defend his right. But we are missing the real point which is, did this brother put the Lord first? Parents will miss the services to take their children, some of whom are also members, to school affairs. They will forsake the Lord to hear a denominational preacher deliver a baccalaureate, and then, wonder why their children later forsake the Lord permanently for worldly interests. Young Christians will go on a senior trip or some other out-of-town excursion and will make no effort to locate a church on Lord’s Day morning. Such is evidence that these Christians are not spiritual, but carnal. They are carnal because of their love of money or love of pleasure. Christians must be made to understand that everyone must choose whether to serve God or mammon. Those who go through life trying to serve both are only deceiving themselves. We do them no service by winking at their behavior.

Another great enemy of spiritual growth is the prevalent belief that only the leaders in the church need to attain a high degree of spirituality. Most of us do only as much as we are expected to do. If the young man who is planning to be a carpenter or a lawyer is not expected to know as much about God’s will as the young man who is planning to spend his full-time preaching, then he will not devote himsef to a study of the Bible. If the young lady who knows that she is not permitted to become a public proclaimer of the gospel is allowed to believe that she is thus relieved of the responsibility of understanding the more profound points of religion, then she will continue to be satisfied by the “milk” of first principles and will make no effort to digest the “meat.” It must be emphasized that the individual responsibility of a Christian to grow in knowledge is not dimished one whit by the fact that he will never be an elder or a full-time preacher. Spirituality is more than mere knowledge, but it cannot exist without a knowledge of scripture. That is the foundation upon which it rests.

To be spiritual, it is necessary to be led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14). The Spirit does not lead us today by supernatural means, but by the written Word. A knowledge of all spiritual things may be obtained by a study of God’s book. It is a deadly mistake to confuse spirituality with a vague mysticism or transcendentalism. So-called knowledge of spiritual beings and laws which is based upon mere human speculation is a fraud. A person who claims such knowledge, as did the ancient Gnostics, is deceiving himself. By intruding into the unseen without scriptural guidance, a man is walking in darkness and is cutting himself off from the nourishment which comes only from Christ through His Word. Such a man will become “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” and will never increase “with the increase of God” (Col. 2:18, 19). His supposed spirituality is in fact carnality.

Spiritual perfection is only to be found in the Godhead. The more like Christ we can become by concentrating upon His example and His teachings, the more spiritual we shall be. “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 179, 186-187
March 19, 1981

By John McCort

Christianity is not all black and white. There are some gray areas in which we must all use our better judgment as to whether the practice is expedient or not. There are some things that might not be condemned but are wrong because they are not expedient. “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor” (1 Cor. 10:23-24). “For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15). “. . . I have become all things to all men that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).

Our main concern in life should be the salvation of the souls of the lost. I need to be willing to make some sacrifices to obtain that end. Thus, there are some questionable practices that I need to be willing to forego in order that I might lead some to Christ. Whatever hurts my influence as a Christian needs to be deleted from my life even if the practice is not technically wrong.

To be more specific I have become concerned recently with an attitude I detect among some brethren, especially among some gospel preachers. It is an attitude of nonchalence toward personal practices which are damaging their influence. Some have taken the attitude that they could care less what people thought of them. Unless someone can demonstrate that what they are doing is sinful then they will continue to practice such regardless of what the general public thinks.

Some preachers have become very slovenly in their appearance. Many have started wearing beards and dressing in a very casual, almost slovenly way. It cannot be argued that this is hurting the influence of some preachers in the community. I am not saying that a beard is sinful in and of itself. What I am concerned with is this: what kind of image are we projecting to the communities we live in when our appearancd is so casual? It is my contention that some preachers are projecting a very poor image to the community. Technically the preachers are not sinful for appearing the way they do in public but it is certainly not expedient. What is not expedient can become sin.

In a recent issue of T.V. Guide, the Professional Bowlers Association was featured. The thrust of the article centered around the efforts of the PBA to clean up their image. The PBA has decided to project a cleancut and wholesome image to the public and thus had adopted some rules that all Professional Bowlers must follow. No beards are allowed. No drinking of alcohol or smoking is allowed during tournament play. Personal dress must be neat and personal appearance must be given attention at all times. I am ashamed to say that the PBA would not allow some of our gospel preachers in their association because the preachers would not project a cleancut and wholesome image to the public.

“I can relate better to the young people if I have a beard and dress like them.” This argument is used to justify the “hippy look” among preachers. I do not believe that young people relate as well to a preacher of this sort. Young women, for example, lose respect for their mothers if mom begins to dress and act like a teenager. They expect mom to act mature even though they do not require the same things out of themselves. Young men do not need a big brother for a father. They need a father. They do not gain the respect of their sons by acting like a young child. Young people need a preacher to set an example for them. They do not need a lumberjack or a hippy for a preacher. Older people are especially offended by the slovenly appearance of some of our younger preachers. Do we have a responsibility to try to reach older people or is our only obligation to young people?

“I just want to show people that a preacher is just like everyone else.” I can appreciate the efforts of some preachers to try to get people away from the idea that preachers are in a separate class from the rest of the brethren. I do not believe, though, that the lumberjack look is the proper approach to the problem. I do not have to get a beer in my hand to show an alcoholic that I am no different than other people. Like it or not, there are some double standards in society. Children set one standard for their parents and another for themselves. We set one standard for public officials and another for ourselves. People expect a little more from a minister because his manner of life is to be impeccable. Right or wrong these are prejudices that we must work with and live with. We must not engage in practices which cause people to lose respect for us as preachers. If a beard, or anything else, diminishes our influence then we need to get rid of it.

I am not trying to sit in judgment of those of you who wear beards and dress casually in public. I cannot condemn something that I do not know is sinful. I am concerned with the “I could care less what people think” attitude that I detect. What other people think of us is important if we are ever going to convert anyone.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 11, p. 170
March 12, 1981